Bonn Climate Change Conference - June 2015

Moderated by Meena Raman, TWN, panelists presented priorities to be addressed by the Paris agreement.

Seyni Nafo, spokesperson for the African Group on the Ad Hoc Working Group on the Durban Platform for Enhanced Action (ADP), outlined the group's priorities for the 2020 work stream: the need for coherent negotiating text from developing countries; accelerating the implementation of existing decisions, especially those on finance; and the need for developing countries to unite in order to protect the most vulnerable.

Noting that a Paris agreement based on capitalism would only delay addressing climate change, Diego Pacheco, Vice Minister, Bolivia, urged learning from the wisdom of Indigenous Peoples. He highlighted Bolivia's specific proposals, including, inter alia, an international court for climate justice and the development of alternative instruments based on a holistic vision of Indigenous Peoples.

Su Wei, China, noted that the Paris outcome will be one more step in addressing climate change, and stressed that the outcome will build upon the commitments under the Convention to agree on further steps on enhanced action. He underlined the need to address both the ambition and the implementation gaps, underscoring the need for confidence building in the multilateral system and closing the trust deficit in implementation commitments.

Ravi Prasad, India, identified critical issues for the Paris agreement including: operationalizing equity; establishing a facilitative regime to support technology transfers; and for intended nationally determined contributions (INDCs) to go beyond mitigation to include finance, technology and capacity building support.

Martin Khor, South Centre, prioritized progress on mitigation, adaptation and loss and damage; sufficient funds and technology; infusion of equity; and high ambition, as key issues necessary for the Paris agreement. Highlighting discussions in some countries to reduce official development assistance to increase climate finance, he identified challenges that would be faced by developing countries if such redistribution were implemented, and discussed how new commitments such as social protection would introduce demands for greater resources.

In the discussion, participants raised questions on, inter alia, making developed countries accountable for their financial pledges, the danger of a "dirty deal" on land use, land use change and forestry before Paris, and the use of savings from fossil fuel subsidies to finance implementation actions.

At this session, moderated by Michelle du Toit, SouthSouthNorth, participants considered development and climate change mitigation in Africa.

Stefan Raubenheimer, Director, SouthSouthNorth, discussed the Mitigation Action Plans and Scenarios (MAPS) programme's potential utility for the African continent, noting the success of the programme in Latin America. He noted the untapped potential of renewable energy, underlining the significance of population growth in Africa that will increase by 3 billion by 2100. Stating that poverty reduction is the key issue of concern for Africa, he suggested that "conscious green development" could help to reduce poverty, using the MAPS tools and modeling to predict future scenarios.

Harald Winkler, University of Cape Town, noted the importance of qualitative, evidence-based processes as well as economic tools and modeling in addressing climate change and development. He underscored the value of nationally-led processes in the MAPS programme and also highlighted the importance of considering local variability, noting problems of global adaptation models that do not take this variability into account. He highlighted development as the core issue, since increased development results in greater capacity for mitigation and adaptation.

Edward Awafo, Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology (KNUST), Ghana, discussed Ghana's national climate and development policies and the Africa Low Emissions Development Strategies (LEDS) Partnership that promotes climate-compatible development across the continent. He noted the need for technology, financing and capacity building to achieve the aims of the agenda, and highlighted the importance of raising public awareness of climate change through high-level speeches. He discussed national initiatives, including policies to replace kerosene lamps with solar lamps, as well as schemes to increase energy efficiency in buildings and appliances, noting institutional, financial and technical challenges.

Webster Whande, Climate and Development Knowledge Network (CDKN) Africa, discussed mitigation within Africa in the context of Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs), noting the "crucial importance" of mitigation in development and poverty reduction. He underscored the potential for mitigation co-benefits arising from adaptation policies, particularly in the agriculture and forestry sectors. He emphasized the importance of considering land-based emissions within Africa, given the importance of this sector on livelihoods in Africa, but highlighted the limitations of existing methodologies in the sector. He suggested INDCs could be a useful planning tool for increasing capacities and improving data collection.

Josep Xercavins, Universidad Politècnica de Catalunya, opened the session on the presentation of modeling results to quantify distributions of emissions for UNFCCC parties based on climate justice criteria using the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's Fifth Assessment Report's Representative Concentration Pathway 2.6.

Noting that carbon budget-based burden-sharing proposals had been largely at the margins of the negotiations, Martin Khor, South Centre, stressed the need for collaboration between institutions working on translating carbon budgets into concrete proposals. He highlighted several implications of a budget sharing approach including: the need for developed countries to reduce emissions very quickly, especially to afford developing countries potential to make social progress; and the necessity to transfer money and resources to developing countries so that development can be achieved within the limited carbon budget.

Xercavins introduced the model and provided the general rationale for the exercise, discussing the political and scientific basis for the model. Olga Alcaraz, Universidad Politècnica de Catalunya presented the details of the model and said the primary achievement of the modeling exercise was to be able to calculate what the future emissions should be for each country based on a corresponding carbon budget by applying the criterion of climate justice per capita for all parties. Using India an example, she stated the modeling results demonstrate that while India's share of global emissions was only 3.6 per cent over the last 40 years, India can justifiably emit 18.2 per cent of the available carbon budget, approaching up to 3.3 tCO2 per capita for 2011-2050 and 1.5 tCO2 for 2011-2011. She noted that India could increase emissions until 2025 and take advantage of a more advanced technological context to make future reductions.

Closing the session, Xercavins said one of the goals of the session was to create a taskforce to introduce the concept of mitigation with climate justice per capita in the negotiations for the Paris agreement. With the carbon budget approach, he said it was not necessary for parties to focus on details that are currently being discussed under mitigation such as reference years, percentage of reduction of emissions, and peak years.

Moderated by Lakpa Nuri Sherpa, AIPP, participants at this event considered the implications of climate change mitigation actions on Indigenous Peoples' rights, and discussed the importance of human rights language in the Paris agreement in order to avoid risks to Indigenous Peoples in climate change projects.

Victoria Tauli Corpuz, Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, recalled the history of bringing human rights of Indigenous Peoples into the climate change process, noting the impact of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues. She drew attention to the negative effects of some climate actions on the human rights of Indigenous Peoples, including displacement. She stressed that parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change should consider the human rights of Indigenous Peoples in all climate change related actions.

Esupat David Songoi, Longido Community Development Organization, Tanzania, highlighted the challenges faced by Indigenous Peoples through: policies that do not consider their wellbeing; clashes between farmers and pastoralists in her country; evictions from lands designated as protected areas; and investor-related threats. She also spoke on climate related challenges, including eviction from ancestral lands to pave way for the establishment of REDD+ Projects.

Rodon Sulyandziga, Center for the Support of Indigenous Peoples of North Russia, shared the Udege (Forest Peoples) perspective, noting their traditional lifestyle. He also shared key messages from the International Indigenous Peoples Forum on Climate Change including the respect of Indigenous Peoples' rights to land, territories and resources; recognition of traditional knowledge and the role of Indigenous Peoples in adaptation and mitigation; and Indigenous Peoples' role in community-based monitoring information systems.

In the discussion, participants raised questions on, among others, linking human rights to the right to food; the need for the Paris agreement to strengthen the human rights of Indigenous Peoples; engaging policymakers and activists in human rights issues related to climate change; and overcoming the challenges faced by Indigenous Peoples in the implementation of climate actions.

This event discussed issues related to accountability of climate financing. The session was moderated by Lisa Ann Elges, Transparency International (TI), who invited speakers to identify problems for ensuring accountability within climate finance and to comment on possible solutions to resolve these issues.

Paul Wolvekamp, Both ENDS Foundation, noted the need for far greater financial commitments to invest in social, environmental and institutional buffers to support large populations affected by climate change. He suggested partnerships to create greater involvement of civil society as a solution, identifying the need for a bottom-up approach that can offer safeguards and accountability mechanisms to affected populations.

Marcia Levaggi, Adaptation Fund, presented measures for addressing accountability within the fund and highlighted some concerns. She noted the limitations of being hosted by the Global Environment Facility (GEF) and the World Bank, stating that under the current setting an investigative unit of the Adaptation Fund is not possible. She noted the Adaptation Fund board's capacity to request reviews from the accreditation panel if an issue is raised by the secretariat's complaint mechanism, stating that the board has power to cancel or suspend accreditation.

Highlighting that Climate Investment Funds were subject to the safeguard policies and procedures of the World Bank, Fisseha Tessema Abissa discussed arrangements in the governance structure of the CIF that allow for active stakeholder participation. Noting Transparency International's accountability and integrity assessment report on the Climate Investment Funds, he said the CIF had decided to establish a code of conduct in its last meeting and that preparations including consultations with civil society members were underway.

Responding to the moderator's prompt to share experiences regarding human rights, Katharina Rall emphasized the importance of a holistic approach for grievance mechanisms with at least the following elements in place: funding and institutional support, due diligence regarding human rights risk assessments, and monitoring and compliance procedures. She also stressed the importance of grievance mechanisms in implementing entities, especially if these entities do not feel bound by the procedures put in place by related funding mechanisms.

During discussions, participants highlighted: the need for more effective information sharing between different entities; the principle of non-discrimination; the need for dedicated funding for implementing safeguards and operating grievance mechanisms; and accountability for implementing entities.